Game over in Pennsylvania!

March 19th, 2018, 3:49pm by Sam Wang

Today came two rulings. First, a three-judge court turned down a challenge to the redrawn Pennyslvania Congressional map. Then, a few hours later, the U.S. Supreme Court did the same.

These were long-shot cases, since they would have involved finding that the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Constitution was in conflict with the United States Constitution, for example if there were an affirmative right to gerrymander in the latter. It would have been tortured logic, and it appears that there were not enough votes on the Supreme Court to go there. This outcome is logically unsurprising…but still a relief.

There was talk about finding a reason to overturn the state court’s decision using Article I, which states that the legislature has the power to set the manner of elections. However, this would go against considerable court precedent. That might fly when the Presidency is at stake (i.e. Bush v. Gore), but to swing half a dozen Congressional seats? As of 2018, no.

So…game over for partisan gerrymandering in Pennsylvania’s Congressional delegation! At least for 2018, and probably 2020. After that…we start over again with the next Census and redistricting.

I would rather ask “I wonder if these decisions were influenced by the as-yet-undisclosed decisions in the two cases SCOTUS has before it?”

I find it hard to imagine SCOTUS blocking the PA court’s decision saying PA lacked the authority, but then (after it is too late for 2018) demanding the same remedy on their own authority. Legally this would pass muster, but it would be counterproductive and just look plain crazy.

So, on a Bayes’ Rule basis we should move the needle closer to Whitford’s position.

Ah, I was not aware. That is important – and I expect we will learn something on the 28th …

I don’t have a feeling for whether the justices care much about those oral arguments, but I am pretty certain they will not authorize their clerks to start coordinating on writing an opinion until afterwards.

The justices meet for the first time to hold a preliminary vote and discuss the possible decision of a case at a conference during the week of oral argument. For an argument heard on a Wednesday, the conference is held Friday afternoon of that week.

The question becomes, is this an honest attempt or is it election year politicking? Are they afraid the state legislature maps can fall to the same challenge? They can’t get new justices and restore the map for this election cycle so they may want to rethink having this opinion voided because the opposition party could well be in power during the next redrawing so they would lose twice.

Josh – the idea is that they remove all the justices they don’t like, reject any replacement candidates from the governor, and have their remaining two justices reverse the original decision. In the US, the highest court is always free to reverse itself.